Accused MS-13 gang leader set for deportation after judges drop charges
Alexandria Sheriff's Office photograph of Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos.
A
US federal judge
on Wednesday dismissed all criminal charges against
Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos
, a 24-year-old Salvadoran national accused of being an
MS-13 leader
on the East Coast, clearing the way for his
deportation
, according to his attorney.
The Justice Department's request to withdraw charges earlier this month signalled their intention to deport Villatoro Santos.
The presence of a US marshal from the Fugitive Task Force at the hearing suggested imminent transfer to immigration custody. "They're likely to take him very quickly," stated defence attorney Muhammad Elsayed following the hearing, according to CBS news.
Henrry Villatoro Santos was arrested on March 27 during a raid at his home in Woodbridge, Virginia, and charged with being an
undocumented immigrant
in possession of a firearm.
Authorities identified him as one of the top three MS-13 gang leaders in the US and found gang-related items in his bedroom and garage.
Earlier on April 9, Attorney General Pam Bondi requested the charges be dropped to allow for his immediate deportation to El Salvador instead of a lengthy prison sentence in the US.
A federal judge briefly delayed the motion on April 18, but it was approved on Wednesday by US District Court Judge Claude Hilton.
Despite allegations of unspecified violent crimes and leadership in criminal activities nationwide, the Justice Department's pursuit of charge dismissal has not publicly connected him to any violent acts.
"This is an unusual case," Elsayed stated in court, noting the court's responsibility "to determine whether the motion was made in good faith."
He highlighted the Justice Department's lack of explanation for withdrawing charges and questioned the uncertainty of subsequent legal procedures. "There will likely be additional proceedings," Elsayed noted post-hearing, CBS reported.
The defence counsel criticised the Justice Department's use of Rule 48(a) for dismissing the indictment, suggesting it circumvented due-process protections.
"They want to deport him without due process," Elsayed stated, referencing Bondi's statements and noting the department of homeland security's limited involvement. Government lawyers responded that the defence had already extended the case beyond its initial request.
The department of homeland security's Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital about the increasing desperation amongst gangs, noting that authorities apprehended 2,394 undocumented gang members during Trump's initial 100-day period.
"This is just the beginning," she said.
"This is just 100 days. We want to get these arrest numbers up. We want to get MS-13, Tren de Aragua these really bad actors — out of our country. And that's what we're going to deliver on," she added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Federal lawsuit threatens in-state tuition access for undocumented students in Kentucky
Federal lawsuit threatens in-state tuition access for undocumented students in Kentucky Undocumented students in Kentucky may soon face a major barrier to higher education, as a new federal lawsuit challenges their eligibility for in-state tuition. The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, has filed a suit arguing that Kentucky's current policy—allowing undocumented students to pay reduced tuition at public colleges and universities—violates federal immigration law. The regulation under scrutiny has enabled many undocumented students, often referred to as "Dreamers," to afford college by qualifying for in-state tuition if they graduated from a Kentucky high school. Without this provision, many would be required to pay significantly higher out-of-state rates, placing college out of reach for a large number of young people who have grown up in the state. The basis of legal challenge The federal lawsuit claims that Kentucky's tuition policy conflicts with federal immigration laws that bar states from offering public benefits—such as lower tuition rates—to undocumented immigrants unless those same benefits are available to all U.S. citizens, regardless of where they reside. Since out-of-state U.S. citizens are not eligible for Kentucky's in-state tuition, the Justice Department argues the regulation is unlawful. This legal action mirrors a similar federal case in Texas, where a court ruling recently blocked a comparable policy. That ruling has encouraged broader efforts to challenge in-state tuition laws for undocumented students in other states. Currently, over 20 states offer some form of in-state tuition benefit to undocumented youth based on residency or high school graduation criteria. Impact on students The lawsuit, if successful, could drastically increase the financial burden on undocumented students seeking a college education in Kentucky. In-state tuition is often more than 50% cheaper than the rates charged to out-of-state students. For undocumented students, who already face limited access to federal financial aid and scholarships, this change could significantly reduce college enrollment and completion rates. For many of these students, Kentucky is the only home they've known. Having attended and graduated from local schools, they often meet all the typical residency requirements—except legal immigration status. Losing in-state tuition would mean confronting a financial reality many cannot afford. Residency vs. reality Although Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has been named in the lawsuit, the tuition regulation being challenged was created over a decade ago by the state's Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE), an independent body responsible for setting tuition residency rules. The governor's office has clarified that it has no authority over these regulations. Meanwhile, the CPE is currently reviewing the legal challenge but has not provided a detailed response. Attempts to change the policy through the state legislature have previously failed, even with a Republican majority, indicating limited consensus on how to approach the issue. For students, however, the consequences are far more immediate and personal. The policy under threat has made college attainable for undocumented students who completed their schooling in Kentucky, treating them as residents for tuition purposes. Losing this status would mean a steep rise in college costs—often tens of thousands more each year—making higher education unaffordable for many. This lawsuit doesn't just test the boundaries of state versus federal authority; it puts the academic futures of young people at risk. Many undocumented students, brought to the U.S. as children, consider Kentucky their home. For them, this case could determine whether they can pursue a degree or face yet another barrier rooted not in merit, but in immigration status. As the legal process unfolds, the broader question remains: should a student's ability to afford college hinge on where they were born? Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Trump Can Keep Using Troops in LA for Now, Appeals Court Says
President Donald Trump can continue to use National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles as a legal challenge over his use of the military proceeds, a federal appeals court ruled. In a win for the White House, a three-judge panel in San Francisco on Thursday said the Trump administration can keep using California National Guard troops to respond to the situation. In effect, it doesn't change the situation on the ground in Los Angeles, where the federal government has been deploying the military for more than a week. Thursday's decision isn't the final ruling on the matter and is likely to be immediately challenged. California could appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, or a bigger panel in the same appeals court. The lower court that had ordered the federal government to return control of the troops to the state will also hold a hearing on Friday. California and the Trump administration have been sparring over the federal government's response to the protests, including the deployment of thousands of the state's National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines. California and its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, have blasted Trump's deployment as a 'power grab' and an unnecessary intrusion on the work of local officials to police the protests. Lawyers for the state also have said it's 'terrifying' that Justice Department lawyers said the presidents actions can't be second-guessed by the courts, and argue that the deployment sets a dangerous precedent. The Trump administration has maintained that the president has the power to unilaterally federalize National Guard troops when he determines there is a 'rebellion' or 'invasion' that necessitates military intervention. And presidents are permitted to call up the state troops when 'regular forces' are unable to enforce federal law. The appeals court judges said Trump likely acted lawfully when he federalized the National Guard, but they objected to arguments raised by Justice Department lawyers that his decision cannot be reviewed by the courts. 'We conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the appeals court said in a unanimous ruling late Thursday. The judges also stressed that the decision is limited to whether Trump was allowed to call for the deployment, but does not address 'the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.' The appeals court panel, which heard arguments Tuesday by lawyers from both the Justice Department and California, is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump and one by former President Joe Biden. The court stepped in last week at the administration's request to pauses US District Judge Charles Breyer's order declaring that Trump's deployment without California's consent was 'illegal.' Trump issued a proclamation authorizing their deployment on June 7 and said protests in the city against his deportation initiative represent a form of 'rebellion' against the authority of the federal government. In court filings, lawyers for the administration cited reports of violence and threats against federal property and officers conducting immigration enforcement. Breyer said in his June 12 ruling he was troubled by the idea that a protest against the federal government on its own could 'justify a finding of rebellion.' The case is Newsom v. Trump, 25-3727, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Karen Read supporters use a hand gesture after her verdict: What does it mean?
Supporters of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman charged in the high-profile death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, have adopted a distinctive and silent hand gesture to show their solidarity. Widely seen at rallies and outside the courthouse, the gesture has sparked curiosity, but its meaning is both simple and symbolic. Here's what it represents. Also Read: In Pics: Karen Read's supporters celebrate as she's acquitted of murder in John O'Keefe's death The gesture adopted by Karen Read's supporters is the American Sign Language sign for 'I love you'—a subtle but deeply meaningful expression of solidarity. Her attorneys specifically requested that the crowd, often dressed in pink to show their allegiance, use the silent gesture instead of vocal cheers or chants while entering and exiting the courthouse. The aim was to maintain decorum and avoid disrupting the legal proceedings, as reported by The New York Post. When Read emerged from court with only a drunk driving conviction, her supporters responded with a wave of raised hands forming the 'I love you' sign. Read and her attorneys, visibly moved, returned the gesture, signaling mutual gratitude and reinforcing the close bond between her and the crowd that had stood by her throughout the case. Also Read: What is Adrian Peterson's net worth? NFL legend's poker night fight video surfaces Karen Read's father, William Read, spoke about the overwhelming support his daughter received as her case evolved into a highly publicized New England crime drama. According to CBS, he said, 'All of these folks here, hundreds and hundreds of supporters. It's all about fighting back. It's about the corruption that has put us in this position.' On Wednesday, Read was acquitted of the second-degree murder charge that had placed her at the center of a gripping and controversial case. Prosecutors had alleged that she struck her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV and left him to die in a snowstorm outside a suburban house party in 2022.
